header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 1 | Pages 59 - 67
1 Jan 2022
Kingsbury SR Smith LK Shuweihdi F West R Czoski Murray C Conaghan PG Stone MH

Aims

The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without.

Methods

Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as ‘Planned’ or ‘Unplanned’ revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 102-B, Issue SUPP_5 | Pages 13 - 13
1 Jul 2020
Stone M Smith L Kingsbury S Czoski-Murray C Judge A Pinedo-Villanueva R West R Wright J Smith C Arden N Conaghan P
Full Access

Follow-up of arthroplasty varies widely across the UK. The aim of this NIHR-funded study was to employ a mixed-methods approach to examine the requirements for arthroplasty follow-up and produce evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations. It has been supported by BHS, BASK, BOA, ODEP and NJR.

Four interconnected work packages have recently been completed: (1) a systematic literature review; (2a) analysis of routinely collected National Health Service data from four national data sets to understand when and which patients present for revision surgery; (2b) prospective data regarding how patients currently present for revision surgery; (3) economic modelling to simulate long-term costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with different follow-up care models and (4) a Delphi-consensus process, involving all stakeholders, to develop a policy document to guide appropriate follow-up care after primary hip and knee arthroplasty.

We will present the following Recommendations:

For ODEP10A∗ minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from 1 to 10 years post non-complex hip and knee replacement provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review

For ODEP10A∗ minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP10A∗ minimum implants, periodic follow-up post hip and knee replacement may be required from 1 to 10 years

At 10 years post hip and knee replacement, we recommend clinical, which may be virtual, and radiographic evaluation

After 10 years post hip and knee replacement, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the 10-year assessment; ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required

Overarching statements

These recommendations apply to post primary hip and knee replacement follow-up

The 10-year time point in these recommendations is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years

The term complex cases refer to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for replacement failure